I'm gonna back up a post or so and readdress a few things.
What other standard is there? Well, if you're trying to compare one of our presidents to people who have effectively committed atrocious crimes against humanity, I would start with their actions or what you're doing is as dubious to me as invoking Godwin's Law and becomes purely guilt by association.
Since I'm not making such a comparision, this is not a function of my argument. I used "More in common with" in terms of socioeconomic status. How much money they make. The fact that they meet, in most cases rather regularly. That they deal with many of the same companies and organizations, though the latter is less true of Libya than the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt.
The US hasn't needed to suppress it's own people en mass since the Battle of Blair Mountain. Instead the US does it to other countries. Cuba, the origin of the term 'Banana Republic', Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan.
The US hasn't needed to suppress people by the thousands since the Battle of Blair Mountain. Of course, killing innocents in other countries doesn't count, apparently. Most US presidents have some innocent blood on their hands, from Washington burning innocent villages, to the Trail of Tears, to the Spanish-American War, to the founding of the term 'Banana Republic', to the excessive sanctions on Iraq, and now we have predator drone assassinations where up to thirty innocents dying is 'okay'. If you're going to talk about mass murder, why don't those atrocities count? Because it's 'warfare'?
It's really the same problem. They don't count because you don't know them. You don't know their struggles, their reasons, their loves, their joy and sadness. To you, they are a statistic.
I am going to assert that their overlapping "social circle" is poor criteria, and criteria that has not come with much evidence on your behalf - no evidence of who is in this social circle and why it's relevant or makes them akin to someone who commits atrocious crimes against humanity. So far, it's been vaguely anecdotal. To make a long story slightly shorter, I'm asking you for evidence that A) this so-called "social circle" exists in some capacity and B) it matters. I'm afraid we're skipping right along to the path of being able to justify comparing damn near anyone to Hitler just because one part of their Venn Diagram overlaps.
Do you think they worry about the same things their citizens do? Do you think they have the same problems?
Here's an interesting challenge. Find me someone in Obama's social circle who has been unemployed and looking for work for more than a year. Or even a month. Then do the same for Mubarak before his ousting. Or the CEO of any major corporation.
They are not, personally, presented with the concerns of their citizenry. That is why it matters. It doesn't make them evil. But even the best of them live in a bubble. For the same reason you don't personally experience the suffering of families when a drone kills thirty people at a funeral.
Without getting too far into the conspiracy theory of the Bilderberg Group, Bill Gates was an attending member and should also, by proxy, be on par with the same men you're comparing our presidents to, and I'm almost positive Mubarak wouldn't approve of actively pouring the kind of money Bill Gates has into humanitarian efforts and literacy programs.
Don't know what Mubarak thinks. I separate them because Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Elizabeth Warren, etc. have a mathematical understanding of what is wrong with the status quo. They of course pay their people well, but they didn't become the two richest people on the planet (and would have stayed there were it not for their donations) by being idiots. More to the point, they had to employ intelligent people to do their work for them, with rather little in the way of 'peasants' like Walmart.
If I'm to take this "social circle" talk seriously, then I'd start to assert that Mariah Carey and Beyonce are also closer to Gaddafi than the so-called "American people" (whose attributes you have also not made clear except to insinuate that we all apparently have something in common that is lacking in American presidents and dictators alike) -- and wouldn't you know it, they have a lot of money and cultural influence, as well!
Dunno about those two, but for many celebrities (Chuck Norris comes to mind), yep.
Not quite sure I get your point with this. Are you making a complaint that the president charges a hefty fee to show up somewhere and so people who are rich/powerful can afford to "build rapport"? I'm pretty sure that world leaders aren't necessarily good buddies just because they happen to meet a handful of times to talk business and maybe have dinner together.
For all I hear about Sarkozy and Chirac, the impression I get is yes, they do form close friendships with many other world leaders, with a few exceptions.
I guess my point here is that this idea of "social circles" is tenuous and a wildly inconsistent standard. Are we even taking into account with this theory that there are a number of positive influences in the same social circles?
I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of my argument.
Why aren't jobs a priority in this country? It's American's number one request. But that isn't getting heard, somehow.
They do not personally encounter the problem of joblessness. They don't know homeless people. They don't know people who risk homelessness. The people who know these people aren't a majority of those who make decisions for this country, or other countries.
The problem I see is that it wouldn't be considered a one time thing. If the government did it once, why not again? After all, the people who have the loans need the help. It seems like to me that the government would be giving permission for people to take out bad loans and would be guaranteeing that it would cover them if they have a problem.
Oh, it's far from an ideal solution. The ideal solution would be to constitutionally set a retroactive definition of usury and bad lending practices, then set up a commission to make sure the banks that engaged in such predatory lending paid for their behavior - annulling the loans entirely, including the value of all payments, foreclosures and repossessions made, and hold the top hundred shareholders personally liable for all debts so incurred.
And this situation will never happen again. Because the problem was with the assholes who lent out the money knowing it would eventually cause an explosion, and knowing - still safely, with a ~20 trillion dollar rescue from the government - that the government would bail them out if they failed. And they did. And nothing was fixed.
The lender should assume all responsibility for determining the character of the borrower. That's how it worked when the system was working, and that's how it should work again.
Housing/car loans, you enters those in good faith (Mostly. I know there are crooked loan providers, but the majority of loans and loan providers would be on the up and up.), the same with most other loans I assume. The price of student loans (heard on the radio that is one of the demands of the Occupy (your favorite street/city) movement) seems a bit different. Their cost is more or less associated with the price collages and universities that charge for an education, and that price rises every year. Why are they never pounded like companies are when prices rise a lot?
Actually the problem with student loans is that wages have not risen in line with production, while college costs have. So have costs of eating, housing, and other such factors - but wages have not risen with them. Since education is seen as discretionary, and discretionary income actually went negative just before the crash, people think that debts of $50k-$100k are a big deal, when they should not be.
Basically anyone making less than ~$300k a year right now is making less than they would have if the economic policies of the 60s and earlier had remained in place. The median wage in this country is something like $25k a year. Look up the median income in Norway.
Then look up the means. The mean income, in the US, is $100k per year.
People on this forum have gloated about making $60k a year. I know people who have written off more than that without batting an eyelash. Discussing economics with them is interesting - they really don't know the sorts of traps people get into these days.
Threatening people as you are currently doing is hardly civil, I don't see how I'm supposed to have a discussion with someone who's condescending me in the way you are. I'm done.
Playing the 'staff abuse' card does not win you any points, nor does it magically make your claims of incivility true. If you have an issue with a staff member, you can address it to another staff member. If you are in the right, things will happen. Trieste has reversed my decisions before. Everyone gets a hot head at times, I want to make sure that the best possible result comes of it.
Abusing terminology to that degree, however, is both blatant and premeditated. You had to think that one through. There's no hot-headed excuse, there.